SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 1072

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Ninala Jayasurya, J.
K. Gangadhar – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10569 of 2021
Decided On : 09-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
K.S.Murthy, Advocate, P.Rajani Reddy, Advocate, K.Madhava Reddy, Advocate

The Commissioner has no power or authority to issue proceedings absorbing an employee in a Devasthanam, as the power of appointment of employees is vested with the Executive Officer under Sec. 35 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.

Headnote:

COMMISSIONER - POWER - APPOINTMENT - ABSORPTION - EDITOR - RELIGIOUS MAGAZINE - CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1987 - ANDHRA PRADESH CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS OFFICE HOLDERS AND SERVANTS SERVICE RULES, 2000 - WRIT PETITION - JURISDICTION - STATUTORY PROVISIONS - INTERPRETATION - LEGAL PRINCIPLES - JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - ANALYSIS - DECISION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Post Graduate in Telugu and a Doctorate in Social Work, was initially appointed as regular incharge of "Sri Kanaka Durga Prabha", a religious monthly magazine published by the 3rd respondent-Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, in the year 2003. He worked as Assistant Public Relations Officer from 2004 to 2007 and as Sub-Editor of the magazine from 2009. In 2014, he was asked to discharge the duties of Editor. The petitioner filed several writ petitions seeking a direction to the authorities for sanction of the post of Editor and implementation of the same. The 2nd respondent-Commissioner issued proceedings in 2021 sanctioning one post of Editor in the cadre of Assistant Executive Officer and prescribed the qualifications for the said post. The 2nd respondent also issued separate proceedings absorbing the petitioner in the newly sanctioned post of Editor and directed the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent to take further necessary action. However, the Executive Officer did not take any action, prompting the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Commissioner has the power to sanction posts for a class and category of employees and fix the cadre strength. 2. The Rules of 2000 are not applicable to the petitioner as he was not appointed against a sanctioned post. 3. The Commissioner has no power or authority to issue proceedings absorbing the petitioner in the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam. 4. The proceedings of absorption by the Commissioner are contrary to the provisions of the Act, and the action of the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent in not giving effect to the same cannot be treated as disobeying the orders of the superior and would not amount to in-subordination.

Issues: 1. Whether the proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021 creating the post of Editor is within the powers of the 2nd respondent- Commissioner? 2. Whether Rules, 2000 are applicable to the petitioner? 3. Whether the proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021 absorbing the petitioner is within the power of the 2nd respondent- Commissioner and the same are liable to be implemented by the 3rd respondent? 4. Whether the proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021 are contrary to the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Commissioner is vested with the power to sanction posts for a class and category of employees and fix the cadre strength under Rule 37 of the Rules, 2000. 2. The petitioner is not covered under the definition of "Office Holders and Servants" under the Act and Rules, 2000, as he was not appointed against a sanctioned post. 3. The Commissioner has no authority to issue proceedings absorbing the petitioner in the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam, as the power of appointment of employees in the 3rd respondent is vested with the Executive Officer as per Sec. 35 of the Act. 4. The proceedings of absorption by the Commissioner are contrary to the provisions of the Act, and the action of the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent in not giving effect to the same cannot be treated as disobeying the orders of the superior and would not amount to in-subordination.

Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.

JUDGMENT

1. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is about the competency of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner in issuing proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021 for absorbing the petitioner herein as Editor of "Sri Kanaka Durga Prabha', a religious monthly magazine (hereinafter referred to as magazine) published by the 3rd respondent-Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, in a newly sanctioned post and non-implementation of the same by the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam.

2. The facts of the petitioner's case as per the pleadings may briefly be stated thus: The petitioner is a Post Graduate in Telugu from Acharya Nagarjuna University. He secured a Master Degree in Communication in Journalism from Potti Sriramulu Telugu University and did M.A., (Sanskrit) from the same University. He was awarded Doctorate (Ph.D.,) in Social Work by Acharya Nagarjuna University. He obtained P.G.D.C.A., in Human Resource Management from Andhra Pradesh Productivity Council. He had also passed the required Account Test for Sub-ordinate Officers Part-I (08), Account Test for Executive Officer (141), Endowment Department Test (103, 126) conducted by Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as regular incharge of "Sri Kanaka Durga Prabha" in the year 2003, on consolidated pay. He worked as Assistant Public Relations Officer from 2004 to 2007. Later he worked as Sub-Editor of the said magazine from the year 2009 and in the year 2014 he was asked to discharge the duties of Editor vide Proceedings dtd. 14/2/2014 issued by the 3rd respondent.

4. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.16269 of 2014 seeking a direction to the authorities for sanction of the post of Editor and the same was disposed of by an Order dtd. 1/8/2014. He also filed Writ Petition No.20584 of 2017 seeking Time Scale from the date of his appointment as Editor from the year 2014 and an interim direction was issued to consider his representation. However, Time Scale was not paid on the premise that there is no sanctioned post. The petitioner filed another Writ Petition No.581 of 2019 seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to sanction the post of Editor and the same was also disposed of by an Order dtd. 25/1/2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.9165 of 2019 challenging the proceedings dtd. 11/7/2019 issued by the 3 rd respondent-Devasthanam when his services were sought to be dispensed w.e.f. 17/7/2019 onwards. In the said Writ Petition, an interim direction was issued to the 2nd respondent to take action on the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken back into service as an Editor pursuant to the proceedings dtd. 18/10/2019 issued by the 3 rd respondent-Devasthanam, on contract basis, subject to final orders in W.P.No.9165 of 2019.

5. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings in Memo dtd. 8/1/2021, inter alia, sanctioning one post of Editor in the cadre of Assistant Executive Officer and prescribed the qualifications for the said post as per G.O.Ms.No.1060 dtd. 24/10/1989. The 2nd respondent on the same day, by a separate Memo issued proceedings absorbing the petitioner in the newly sanctioned post of Editor and directed the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent to take further necessary action in the matter. However no action was taken by the 3rd respondent-Executive Officer. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

6. Heard Mr.K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.P.Rajani Reddy, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also heard Mr.K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

Contentions:

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the petitioner is qualified to the post of Editor, which is in the cadre of Assistant Executive Officer and functioned as the Editor of magazine, pursuant to the proceedings dtd. 14/2/2014 issued by the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top